Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected] or [email protected]
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
Tarantino is overrated. You have to watch a lot of movies to come to this realisation, because otherwise you don't realise his movies are often in large part a collage of other movies. Movies which did what he does better. That means that it doesn't actually matter that Tarantino is overrated for most movie goers. More generally, this is why critics' opinions don't actually matter that much. They've watched too many movies and likely know too much about movies, to tell the average audience goer if they'll enjoy a movie.
Once you've watched a few thousand movies, and especially if you've ever studied film or read a few books about it, you'll often find you enjoy interesting but shit movies more, than very well made but unoriginal movies. People who truly love film, invariably aren't snobs. They enjoy absolute trash, they enjoy arty farty stuff. If someone has a related degree or even a doctorate or works in the industry, the likelihood is high that they're also a fan of B-movies. They don't need to pretend to be knowledgeable, because they are. A film snob will bore you with the details of a Tarkovski movie. A cinephile is more likely to bang on about 80s horror movies, lesbian vampire sexploitation movies, Albert Pyun's Cyborg, or Troma's The Toxic Avenger.
I enjoy Tarantino movies. It all boils down to: are they solid fun entertainment or not, and to me the answer is yes.
Someone else did it better elsewhere? Sure, and he is very forthcoming about his influences. So if you're a fan, you'll likely find his sources and enjoy those too. Win win.
Oh, don't get me wrong. You're not wrong to enjoy them. They're still fun to watch.
It's just that IME they're less 'great' if you've watched a lot of the movies they're based on.
Also, Tarantino is an excellent stepping stone to discovering some great stuff. He's a true film nerd, so he knows his movies.
You might already know about his podcast "The Video Archives", where he rants about old movies that may or may not have influenced him.
Thanks for recommendation. I'll add it to the list.
I would love to spend a night with him, sitting together at a kitchen table, him constantly ranting about movies and giving anecdotes, me pouring more wine...
I think this is the beauty of Tarantino.
This is how I've come to view anime. You can tell the age of an anime fan by whether they're enamored by the latest hit series or they sigh and go "this is just a remake of [old series from the 90s/00s]." I don't give a shit how well made a series is; if the premise is "been there done that" without an original take or twist, or a tired and worn trope gets trotted out (looking at you, every fucking series that includes a scene where a female character comments enviously on another female character's large breasts, yes Frieren that means you), then I'm insta-jaded on the series. At a certain point you realize anime relies heavily on its perpetual fandom refresh, with new fans replacing the ones who "aged out." For me, I knew it had gotten bad when I was struggling to enjoy Cyberpunk because I felt like I had heard all the voices before in previous series.
Not unique to anime, Hollywood has been remaking movies and TV shows 'for a new generation' forever. Anime is just following the same pattern.
It occurred to me why The Wiggles have been making so much money for so long: they only need to have enough material to entertain kids for a few years, and the ages that they're targeting are the ones who love repetition anyway! Most entertainers need to constantly improve and evolve, but kids entertainers just need to enthusiastically do the same thing over and over.
I think one of the differences (at least when I watched anime way back in the early 00s) is that anime relies on a whole different set of tropes from Western movies and cartoons, and those tropes are unfamiliar (or were, anyway) to Western audiences.
When I started watching anime, it was hugely refreshing to be caught by surprise by plot twists and dialogue, and to see characters & themes that felt totally original.
But then you watch more anime, and realize...oh, they weren't unique, they were totally stereotypical. You just didn't know the stereotypes they were based on.
And before long you can see plot twists a mile away, the characters are predictable, and you can describe a new series as "basically X, but with some Y and monsters instead of robots".
It's the false promise of that initial discovery that makes the eventual realization that much more disappointing.
Agreed, the novelty of anime was a huge draw for me as well (especially since at the time there weren't any anime-influenced Western cartoons). There are of course still standouts in anime that were revolutionary at the time and have since aged well (such as NGE and Cowboy Bebop, both of which are now over two decades old). There are also a few series that maybe weren't masterpieces but still feel unique, as well as a handful that are cultural behemoths in and of themselves (like Gundam). But as with all media, the more you consume the more patterns emerge until the whole medium starts to feel tired.
Very good point.
Isn't that the definition of filmmaking? All movies are just collages of influences, style, and form. All art is a remix on previous forms.
It's okay to not like Tarantino, I don't care much about that, but your argument doesn't really hold up for me.
Almost all art is influenced by other art. But Tarantino very closely copies some scenes. Think a literal collage, made up of photocopied bits of another work, rather than a painting inspired or influenced by another work. Tarantino is honest about this.
It's a bit like Andy Warhol's Mona Lisa:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colored_Mona_Lisa
Is that a great painting? I quite like it, it's iconic, but it's not the Mona Lisa, and Warhol is not Da Vinci.
People who haven't watched a lot of movies, think Tarantino is Da Vinci. That he created an iconic scene, like Da Vinci painted the Mona Lisa.
People who have watched a lot of movies, realise he's Warhol. There's an iconic scene, but it's based on an original work, like Warhol's Mona Lisa.
There's nothing wrong with Warhol. Hell, it's ok to think that Warhol is a better artist than Da Vinci, think that Warhol's Mona Lisa is a better painting than the original Mona Lisa, art is subjective after all.
But it's a mistake to think Warhol is a genius, because he painted the Mona Lisa. He didn't. That was Da Vinci. If you're going think Warhol is a genius, you should think he's a genius because he took an existing work and manipulated it in a way that is genius.
Almost all art is influenced by other art. But Tarantino very closely copies some scenes.
Think a literal collage, made up of photocopied bits of another work, rather than a painting inspired or influenced by another work. Tarantino is honest about this.
It's like Andy Warhol's Mona Lisa:
Can you recommend some of these films that his collage films consist of?
It's been a while, and he references dozens of movies, so much so that you're watching his movies and think "wait, I've seen this before" and then you're distracted by the next scene you've seen before. But off the top of my head Vanishing Point, Foxy Brown, Lady Snowblood, Bruce Lee movies, and the Dirty Dozen.
But don't watch those. I probably enjoyed Vanishing Point the most, Bruce Lee in Game of Death is also fun, but often they have a few good scenes, the ones that Tarantino copied (sometimes poorly), but the rest of the movie can be a bit meh. Instead watch Oldboy, Lady Vengeance, In the Mood for Love, Infernal Affairs, Unforgiven, and (why not) Enter the Void. Not that those are my favourite movies, but they're movies that shouldn't bore you.
I'm not sure I get your point, but I agree with your premise. Tarantino has made some ok movies but more often than not I find them boring, with poor acting and absurdly uninteresting story lines.